Louis Vuitton claims that Live! Casino has gone too far in capitalizing on the recognizable look of the famous monogram with its promotional line of bags. Not only does the pattern bear a strong resemblance, but the design and commercial presentation could also give the impression of a connection between the two parties. Where does inspiration end and riding on the coattails of a well-known brand’s reputation begin?

Pattie Gonia is a witty reference to Patagonia. When this name was registered as a trademark for items including clothing, merchandise and campaigns, Patagonia certainly stopped laughing. Can a name rooted in both parody and activism clash with the interests of a well-known brand owner?

For many consumers, SMÅLAND brings to mind IKEA, but this blog isn’t about whether this name could be a brand for a children’s play paradise, but for beer. Here’s a hint: SMÅLAND is also the name of a real Swedish region.

What initially seemed like a good idea, a supplementary registration of LEDGER WALLET alongside the earlier registration of LEDGER. turns to be disastrous: the trademark is refused and jeopardizes the earlier registration.

When Fender took legal action against manufacturers of so-called ‘S-Type’ guitars, the debate quickly shifted from trademark rights to the tone and proportionality of a cease-and-desist letter. How do you protect an iconic brand without losing goodwill among the very people who feel a connection to that brand?

DeepSeek quickly became a well-known name in artificial intelligence. Yet that recognition proved no free pass for registering the DEEPSEEK trademark, as the application collided with the earlier DEEP mark owned by Post Luxembourg.

Art and design thrive on inspiration. But there are limits. When a third party registered a design that closely resembled the distinctive Mercedes S-Class design, the question was whether this could still qualify as a valid design with individual character.

Can you trademark the English word “SNACK”? And if not, where are the limits of trademark protection for English words?

When is a famous name so deeply embedded in culture that the public no longer sees it as an indication of origin, but as a reference to the content itself? The case of GEORGE ORWELL illustrates the factors at play in this regard for books, films, podcasts, and educational services, though the boundaries for other sectors are not immediately clear.

Can Annaïs Paris stand on its own alongside the well-known cosmetics brand ANAIS ANAIS, or will consumers confuse the two brands?

MARLBORO faces MILLSBORO and exposes how close is too close to a reputed mark. Will the relevant public still make a link between the signs despite their differences?

Fame can stand in the way of trademark registration. That proved decisive in the application for SAGRADA FAMILIA filed by the foundation behind the construction of the Sagrada Familia. Does the public see the name Sagrada Familia as a trademark, and therefore as an indication of origin for goods or services from a single undertaking, or instead as a reference to the famous monument?

A Hungarian company had registered the mark “Breitling for women” for cosmetics and perfumes. Breitling opposed this and filed a cancellation action against the mark. Not - contrary to what one might expect - on the basis of the broader protection of the BREITLING trademark, but on the ground that the application had been made in bad faith by the Hungarian party.

Roblox is hard to miss in digital gaming. So what happens when someone applies for the identical sign ROBLOX for pesticides and other pest control products? Roblox is well known, but is it well known enough to stop a trade mark so far removed from its own market? That question sits at the heart of a recent opposition before the EUIPO.

Parody brand ‘mumumelon’ is crystal clear about its intentions: “mumumelon is a dupe activewear brand. A deliberate shameless copy of lululemon. We made it to make a point.” A parody brand with a sharp message. The criticism is aimed at the polluting production of clothing. In many cases, a parody falls within the scope of freedom of expression. But not always.

Do you remember our blog about Converse’s opposition to the trademark application for a circle on the ankle of a shoe featuring “CEBO”? The EUIPO gave the parties time to explore a possible settlement. As no agreement was reached, the Opposition Division has now issued its decision.

Clothing brand Original Penguin has used a penguin as a distinctive element of its brand identity for decades. Now Pudgy Penguins uses penguin branding, a brand that first became known in the Web3 and NFT space. While one brand built its reputation in the traditional fashion industry, the other has increasingly moved into clothing and merchandise. That is precisely where the conflict arises.

In a recent opposition, Home Box Office (HBO) objected to the European trademark application for a figurative mark containing the words GAME OF DRONES. The EUIPO rejected the mark. According to the Office, the relevant goods and services were identical: toy drones fall within the broader category of toys, and the requested entertainment, educational, and training services corresponded fully with the earlier registration for GAME OF THRONES.